This opinion is subject to
further editing and modification.The
final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.

No.2012AP2321-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN:

IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Sean D. Cooper, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

Complainant,

v.

Sean D. Cooper,

Respondent.

FILED

DEC 10, 2013

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.Attorney's
license revoked.

¶1PER CURIAM. On June 6, 2013, Referee Richard C.
Ninneman filed a report recommending that Attorney Sean D. Cooper be declared
in default, concluding that Attorney Cooper engaged in numerous counts of
professional misconduct, and recommending that his license to practice law in
Wisconsin be revoked.

¶2We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are supported by
satisfactory and convincing evidence.Since Attorney Cooper failed to present a defense despite being given
multiple opportunities to do so, we declare him to be in default.We further agree with the referee that the
seriousness of Attorney Cooper's misconduct warrants the revocation of his
license to practice law in Wisconsin.In
addition, we conclude that the full costs of this proceeding, which are
$7,401.14 as of June 26, 2013, should be assessed against Attorney Cooper.

¶3Attorney Cooper was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in
2009.His license to practice law in
Wisconsin was temporarily suspended, pursuant to SCR 22.03(4), on October 17,
2012.His license remains suspended.

¶4On October 24, 2012, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) issued
a complaint against Attorney Cooper alleging 39 counts of professional
misconduct arising out of ten different matters.On December 17, 2012, Attorney Cooper filed a
one-page answer denying all allegations and facts contained in the complaint.

¶6In a February 1, 2013 telephone conference between the referee,
Attorney Cooper, and retained counsel for the OLR, Attorney Cooper was
encouraged to retain counsel and was given until February 28, 2013, to respond
to the amended complaint.A further
telephone conference was scheduled for March 4, 2013.Attorney Cooper was directed to call the
referee in advance of the telephone conference in order to participate.Attorney Cooper failed to make such contact
and the telephone conference was cancelled.

¶7On March 21, 2013, the OLR filed a motion for default
judgment.Attached to the supporting
affidavit was a letter from Attorney Cooper dated March 19, 2013, addressed to
the referee and the OLR's counsel.The
letter stated, "I have decided to voluntary [sic] surrender my license to
practice law in the State of Wisconsin due to personal reasons."

¶8On April 8, 2013, the referee issued a notice that the OLR's
motion for a default judgment would be heard on May 21, 2013.At the May 21 hearing, the OLR's counsel and
an OLR investigator appeared by videoconference and a record was made.Neither Attorney Cooper nor any attorney or
representative made an appearance on his behalf.As a result, the referee granted the OLR's
motion for default judgment and found the OLR proved by clear, satisfactory,
and convincing evidence all allegations in its amended complaint.

¶9The allegations in the amended complaint, which are discussed in
detail in the referee's report, will not be extensively recited or repeated
here.We will briefly summarize the
incidents giving rise to the misconduct.

Multiple Bankruptcy
Proceedings (Counts 1 through 8)

¶10Judge Pamela Pepper, Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, made a submission to the
OLR on May 13, 2011, reporting that, pursuant to the unanimous decision of the
Eastern District of Wisconsin bankruptcy judges, Attorney Cooper had been
barred from filing any new bankruptcy petitions for a period of six
months.The prohibition on his filing
any new cases arose out of his repeated mishandling of multiple bankruptcy
matters, including failing to respond to communications from the bankruptcy
court and trustee, failing to communicate with clients regarding court
appearances, filing schedules in bankruptcy proceedings without prior client
review, and filing bankruptcy petitions during times he was barred from doing
so.

Matter of R.F. (Counts 9
through 14)

¶11In May of 2010, R.F. hired Attorney Cooper to represent her with
respect to charges of discrimination that she had already filed with the United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).R.F. paid Attorney Cooper $4,000 for the
representation.After requesting a
postponement of a mediation, Attorney Cooper failed to respond to telephone
calls from the mediator, failed to file a lawsuit within 90 days after receipt
of the notice of dismissal of R.F.'s claims, causing R.F. to lose her rights to
sue, failed to return R.F.'s file, and failed to timely respond to R.F.'s
grievance.

Matter of N.L. (Counts 15
through 18)

¶12In October of 2010, N.L. hired Attorney Cooper to file a Wis. Stat.
chapter 128 petition in Milwaukee County for voluntary amortization of
debts.Attorney Cooper filed the
petition but never informed N.L. of the appointment of a trustee.The petition was later dismissed due to
N.L.'s failure to make the initial payment to the trustee as ordered by the
court.Attorney Cooper filed a second
petition in April of 2011.The court
sent Attorney Cooper a checklist of missing items and told him if the petition
was not corrected within 30 days, it would be dismissed.Attorney Cooper failed to inform N.L. of the
missing items and failed to contact the trustee or the court, so the second
petition was also dismissed.

Matter of C.D. (Counts 19
through 21)

¶13In September of 2010, C.D. hired Attorney Cooper to represent her
in a chapter 128 proceeding in Milwaukee County.The petition incorrectly stated the debtor's
name and listed an incorrect address.After appointment of a trustee, the trustee filed an affidavit and order
for dismissal based on the fact that the debtor had made no plan payments.The trustee's documents listed the wrong
address for C.D., and there was no correspondence from Attorney Cooper to C.D.
informing the client that a trustee had been appointed.

Matter of Y.D. (Counts 22
through 26)

¶14In December of 2010, Y.D. hired Attorney Cooper to represent her in
a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.Attorney Cooper electronically filed the voluntary bankruptcy petition
and a meeting of creditors was scheduled.Attorney Cooper appeared at the hearing but Y.D. did not. The trustee filed a motion to dismiss the
bankruptcy petition based on Y.D.'s failure to attend the meeting of creditors
and failure to provide tax returns and other information.Attorney Cooper failed to obtain Y.D.'s
signature on any of the documents he electronically filed with the bankruptcy
court as required by local court rules.He also altered the original date on the bankruptcy petition prior to
submitting a copy of it to the OLR, failed to have Y.D. review and sign the
petition before filing it, failed to object to the trustee's motion to dismiss,
and failed to keep Y.D. apprised of the status of her case.

Matter of S.J. (Counts 27
and 28)

¶15On April 1, 2011, S.J. engaged Attorney Cooper to represent her in
a chapter 128 petition in Milwaukee County for the voluntary amortization of
debts.Attorney Cooper filed the
petition.The court advised him that his
proposed trustee was not presently in compliance with a local rule and directed
Attorney Cooper to resubmit appropriate materials to the court within 30 days
or the case would be dismissed.Attorney
Cooper failed to respond within that time period and the proceeding was
dismissed.

Matter of V.H. (Counts 29
through 33)

¶16In March of 2011, V.H. hired Attorney Cooper to represent her in a
chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.Attorney Cooper electronically filed the voluntary bankruptcy petition
but failed to gather the required documents from V.H. prior to filing it.He also failed to have V.H. review and sign
the petition and related schedules prior to filing, failed to keep V.H.
informed about the status of the proceeding, represented to the bankruptcy
court that V.H. had signed the documents when she had not, and changed the
dates on some documents after they had been filed.

Matter of T.M. (Counts 34
and 35)

¶17In March of 2010, T.M. hired Attorney Cooper to defend T.M. in
various criminal matters pending in Racine County.T.M. paid Attorney Cooper $5,000 and a
purported fee agreement letter was signed.T.M. claimed he terminated Attorney Cooper's representation in June 2010
but Attorney Cooper refused to withdraw.T.M. also claimed that Attorney Cooper failed to return his telephone
calls and did nothing to defend him.

Matter of M.D. (Counts 36
through 38)

¶18On February 1, 2011, M.D. hired Attorney Cooper to represent her in
a chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.She
paid him $255.She signed her voluntary
petition, and Attorney Cooper electronically filed it.Attorney Cooper altered the date on the
petition and failed to obtain documents and information from M.D. which were
needed to prepare and file the chapter 13 schedules and plan.

Matter of T.C. (Count 39)

¶19T.C. hired Attorney Cooper in October 2010 to represent her and her
husband in a chapter 128 petition in Milwaukee County for the voluntary
amortization of debts.The proceeding
was dismissed based on the failure of the debtors to make the initial payment
to the trustee as ordered by the court.Attorney Cooper failed to provide T.C. with any correspondence regarding
the status of the proceeding.

Matter of R.C. (Counts 40
through 45)

¶20In February of 2011, R.C. hired Attorney Cooper to represent him in
a criminal proceeding in Dane County.R.C. paid an advance fee of $2,500 which Attorney Cooper deposited
directly into his operating account rather than his trust account.In June of 2011, R.C. terminated the
attorney-client relationship and asked Attorney Cooper to return any unearned
portion of the $2,500 advanced fee.Attorney Cooper failed to respond to this request in an appropriate
manner.

Matter of D.Co. (Counts 46
through 50)

¶21In February of 2011, D.Co. paid Attorney Cooper $295 to represent
her in a chapter 128 proceeding for the amortization of debts.Attorney Cooper never filed the
petition.D.Co. repeatedly called
Attorney Cooper's office regarding the status of the filing, but Attorney
Cooper never returned her phone calls.

Matter of D.Cu. (Counts 51
through 57)

¶22In April of 2012, D.Cu. hired Attorney Cooper to represent him in a
bankruptcy action and paid him $1,500.Attorney Cooper failed to confirm the fee agreement with D.Cu. in
writing, failed to file the bankruptcy petition, failed to keep D.Cu. informed
about the status of the matter, and closed his office without notifying
D.Cu.

Matter of C.H. (Counts 58
through 60)

¶23In early 2011 C.H. hired Attorney Cooper to represent him regarding
workplace discrimination claims in proceedings before the Wisconsin Equal
Rights Division and the United States EEOC.C.H. paid Attorney Cooper an advance fee of $749.Attorney Cooper failed to confirm the fee
agreement in writing.In January of
2012, C.H. and his employer reached a settlement, which Attorney Cooper
approved, and the discrimination complaints with the two agencies were
dismissed.Attorney Cooper failed to
have a contingent fee agreement in writing and signed by C.H., failed to
deliver the case file documents to C.H. when requested, and failed to provide
the OLR with a written response to C.H.'s grievance.

Matter of D.H. (Counts 61
through 65)

¶24In April of 2011, D.H. hired Attorney Cooper to represent him in a
motion to modify a sentence imposed as the result of a 1998 conviction for five
felonies.The original sentence imposed
was 45 years in prison.Attorney Cooper
was paid an advance fee of $2,500.Attorney Cooper failed to return telephone calls inquiring as to the
status of the matter, nor did he file any motion to modify the sentence.D.H. terminated Attorney Cooper's
representation in February of 2012 and requested a refund of the $2,500 and the
return of all documents.Following the
commencement of a small claims action for replevin to obtain the file and a
small claims action for refund of the advanced fee, D.H. accepted a settlement
of $1,500.

Matter of P.T. (Counts 66
through 71)

¶25In February of 2012, P.T. hired Attorney Cooper to represent her in
a petition for guardianship.P.T. agreed
to a flat fee of $700 and paid $400 toward that fee.P.T. made numerous requests to Attorney
Cooper for a copy of the petition for guardianship, which Attorney Cooper did
not provide.She left telephone calls
and text messages to which Attorney Cooper never responded.Attorney Cooper never filed the guardianship
petition.When P.T. asked for a refund
of the $400 she had paid toward the fee, Attorney Cooper offered her a credit
for future legal services and did not refund any portion of the fee.In September 2012 the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund
for Client Protection approved payment of $350 to P.T. for reimbursement of funds
arising out of Attorney Cooper's refusal to refund any part of the advanced
fee.

Matter of A.R. and I.G.
(Counts 72 through 76)

¶26In February of 2011, A.R. and I.G. hired Attorney Cooper to modify
a birth certificate for their son and paid him $1,100 for his services.Attorney Cooper filed a motion to change the
birth certificate but failed to appear at a hearing on the motion.The court subsequently entered an order
dismissing the matter.

Matter of E.W. (Counts 77
and 78)

¶27In February of 2012, E.W. hired Attorney Cooper to represent him in
a chapter 7 bankruptcy matter and paid Attorney Cooper $300 pursuant to a
written engagement letter.The following
month, E.W. informed Attorney Cooper he had decided not to file the bankruptcy
petition and asked for a full refund. Attorney Cooper failed to respond to the
request for a refund and failed to provide a written response to the OLR's
grievance.

¶28The referee concluded that Attorney Cooper committed the misconduct
alleged in the complaint.The OLR
alleged, and the referee found, that Attorney Cooper committed the following
misconduct:

¶29In his report and recommendation, the referee noted that although
there was no indication Attorney Cooper had previously been the subject of
professional discipline, the referee said he "cannot recall a prior
disciplinary proceeding in which the respondent attorney demonstrated such a
complete disregard of clients' rights in multiple matters and a total lack of
respect for the legal profession as [Attorney] Cooper has in this
proceeding."Accordingly, the
referee recommends that this court revoke Attorney Cooper's license to practice
law in the State of Wisconsin.The
referee also recommends that Attorney Cooper be required to make restitution as
follows:D.Co. $295; D.Cu. $1,500; P.T.
$50; Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection $350; A.R. and I.G. $1,100;
and E.W. $200.

¶30Attorney Cooper has not filed an appeal from the referee's report
and recommendation.

¶31Although
Attorney Cooper was given multiple opportunities to present a defense to the
OLR's complaint, he failed to do so.As
noted above, in a March 19, 2013 letter to the referee and the OLR's retained
counsel, Attorney Cooper stated he had decided to surrender his license to
practice law.Under the circumstances of
this case, we deem it appropriate to declare Attorney Cooper in default.

¶33There
is no showing that any of the referee's detailed findings of fact are clearly
erroneous.Accordingly, we adopt
them.We also agree with the referee's
conclusions of law that Attorney Cooper violated all of the supreme court rules
set forth above.

¶34Revocation
of an attorney's license to practice law is the most severe sanction this court
can impose.It is reserved for the most
egregious cases.Although Attorney
Cooper was not licensed to practice law until 2009, during the short time that
he was a practicing attorney, he engaged in repeated misconduct in his handling
of numerous client matters.Based on the
state of the record before us, it appears that Attorney Cooper is unable to
conform his conduct to the standards expected of all members of the Wisconsin
bar.We agree with the referee that no
sanction short of revocation would be sufficient to protect the public, achieve
deterrence, and impress upon Attorney Cooper the seriousness of his
misconduct.We also agree with the
referee that Attorney Cooper should be required to make restitution to various
clients and that he should be assessed the full costs of this proceeding.

¶35IT
IS ORDERED that the license of Sean D. Cooper to practice law in Wisconsin is
revoked, effective the date of this order.

¶36IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Sean D.
Cooper shall make restitution as follows:

Client D.Co.$295;

Client D.Cu.$1,500;

Client P.T.$50;

Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for
Client Protection$350;

Clients A.R. and I.G.$1,100;
and

Client E.W.$200.

¶37IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this
order, Sean D. Cooper shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of
this proceeding.

¶38IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not already done
so, Sean D. Cooper shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the
duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked.

A
lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee
or an unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in
determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following:

(1) the
time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved,
and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;

(2) the
likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular
employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;

(3) the
fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;

(4) the
amount involved and the results obtained;

(5) the
time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;

(6) the
nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;

(7) the
experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the
services; and

The
scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for
which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client in
writing, except before or within a reasonable time after commencing the
representation when the lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on
the same basis or rate as in the past.If it is reasonably foreseeable that the total cost of representation to
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication
may be oral or in writing. Any changes
in the basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in
writing to the client.

[7]SCR 20:1.5(b)(2)
provides as follows:"If the total
cost of representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more than
$1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee that is paid to
the lawyer shall be communicated in writing."

A fee
may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is
rendered, except in a matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by par.
(d) or other law. A contingent fee
agreement shall be in a writing signed by the client, and shall state the
method by which the fee is to be determined, including the percentage or
percentages that shall accrue to the lawyer in the event of settlement, trial
or appeal; litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the recovery; and
whether such expenses are to be deducted before or after the contingent fee is
calculated. The agreement must clearly notify the client of any expenses for
which the client will be liable whether or not the client is the prevailing
party. Upon conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer shall provide the
client with a written statement stating the outcome of the matter and if there
is a recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the method of its
determination.

[10]SCR 20:1.15(b)(4)
states as follows:Unearned fees and
cost advances.

Except
as provided in par. (4m), unearned fees and advanced payments of fees shall be
held in trust until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to sub.
(g).Funds advanced by a client or 3rd
party for payment of costs shall be held in trust until the costs are incurred.

Upon
termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel,
surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the
client to the extent permitted by other law.

[12]SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states
that a lawyer shall not knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law
to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law
previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;...."

[13]SCR 20:3.4(c) provides
that a lawyer shall not "knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules
of a tribunal, except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid
obligation exists;...."

[14]SCR 20:8.4(c) states it
is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;...."

Upon
commencing an investigation, the director shall notify the respondent of the
matter being investigated unless in the opinion of the director the
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and
circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct within 20 days after being
served by ordinary mail a request for a written response.The director may allow additional time to
respond.Following receipt of the response,
the director may conduct further investigation and may compel the respondent to
answer questions, furnish documents, and present any information deemed
relevant to the investigation.

[16]SCR 20:8.4(h) provides
that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in
the investigation of a grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as
required by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR
22.04(1);...."

[17]SCR 22.03(6) states,
"In the course of the investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to
provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents
and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct,
regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance."